The Party of British Identity

Immigration

We recognise that the unique character and enormous achievements of the British people can be attributed, to a large extent, to their ancestry. Distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures; distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples. The very existence of the indigenous population is under unprecedented threat. The destruction of our people will lead to the destruction of our heritage.

Nationality is acquired by descent and, unlike citizenship, cannot be acquired by legal contrivance. Citizenship should be based on Nationality, but it has, quite wrongly, been bestowed on people who are not British Nationals. Since 1948, there have been enormous demographic changes without any consultation of the electorate.

We are committed to preventing the replacement of the British people in their native land. The British Democrats call for an immediate ten-year halt/moratorium to immigration that would lead to permanent settlement and will therefore withdraw the United Kingdom from:

(1) The UN 1951 Refugee Convention.

(2) The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

(3) The Global Compact for Migration.

Talking about reducing net immigration is to connive at the replacement of the indigenous population. Illegal immigrants and immigrants who have committed serious criminal offences would be repatriated immediately. Other immigrants, especially the unassimilable ones, would be provided with incentives to return to their countries of origin, and those countries would be provided with incentives to welcome them.

Our brand of Nationalism is certainly a commodity for export; it can also be imparted to the ethnic minorities in our midst. Why should they settle for being second-class Britons when they can be encouraged through generous resettlement grants to become proud members of their kindred nations?

Laws that provide immigrants and ethnic minorities with preferential treatment would be repealed.

Asylum seekers would be accepted only if they had been singled out for ill-treatment and if Britain were the first safe country they encountered. Asylum seekers who travel through or over several safe countries before arriving in Britain become migrants of choice. Successful applicants for asylum status would be permitted to stay until a safe country in their own part of the world could accommodate them.

Return To Britain – Bringing Families Back Together

The British Democrats are proud to present the “Return To Britain – Bringing Families Back Together” policy.

Britain needs to survive and prosper as a nation with a predominantly ethnically British heritage. A government led by the British Democrats would promote a Return to Britain policy, offering incentives for individuals of British ancestry to return. This initiative aims to utilise their skills in various sectors, including agriculture, business, and medicine, to help rebuild the country. Expatriates are valued, and financial incentives could encourage their return.

This incentive would be paid in instalments over five years and, when necessary for the nation’s greater good, would also provide housing assistance to British individuals who accept the offer to return to Britain.

A British Democrats government would work to eliminate all barriers that might hinder a policy aimed at facilitating a return to Britain. This policy would benefit the country, as there would be no cultural issues to contend with, unlike the challenges posed by the mass importation of people from various regions around the world, many of whom have struggled to assimilate.

On a social level, the policy promises a heartwarming benefit—the permanent reunion of families previously separated. Grandparents will have the joy of seeing their grandchildren again. This benefit essentially means ‘Bringing Families Back Together.’

We would implement this policy by reallocating funds from existing third-world aid. In the Autumn 2024 budget, the Labour Government allocated £13.3 billion in aid for 2024/25 and £13.7 billion for 2025/26.

Those choosing to come back to Britain would not only replace illegal immigrants, deported foreign criminals, and those who decide to leave voluntarily, but also contribute significantly to the growth and prosperity of our nation. A Return to Britain policy is not just about individuals, but about the collective benefit of our country.

Sovereignty of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom must withdraw from all international organisations that encroach on our sovereignty by taking executive-legislative or judicial decisions on behalf of Britain.

We would, therefore, unilaterally withdraw from the Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework Agreement, completely removing all EU law and any trade restrictions between NI and GB. We will restore Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

We voted for the entire United Kingdom to leave the EU, but the Conservatives have betrayed the people of Northern Ireland, and the Labour Party would be no different.

Restore complete control of our fishing waters as early as possible – this is what we voted for at the 2016 referendum.

Our membership of all other international organisations must be considered carefully and, if necessary, renegotiated to prevent any undermining of our sovereignty.

We support our continued membership of the United Nations and we would resist any attempt to give up or take away our permanent seat on the Security Council. We should seek to use that seat to protect the interests of Britain and our friends and to promote international peace and goodwill. We would oppose the use of that seat to promote the partisan policies of other states.

The Territorial Integrity of the United Kingdom

We would oppose absolutely any move to break up the United Kingdom by independence for Scotland or the ceding of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.

We accept the current devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland. However, we view with dismay the inclusion of unrepentant IRA gunmen in the governance of the Province.

The fact that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have devolved Assemblies or Parliaments means that it would be appropriate for England to have a devolved Parliament, provided that there was electoral support for it expressed in a referendum.

Our System of Government

We support the system of constitutional monarchy and believe that the person who succeeds by law to be our monarch should occupy the position of Head of State of the United Kingdom. The monarch must, of course, be capable of resisting attempts by party politicians to use the monarchy for its own purposes.

We believe in Parliamentary Democracy and in Cabinet Government responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Head of Government would, of course, continue to be the Prime Minister. However, we believe in the use of a referendum to consider every question of major national importance.

Democracy is too delicate a flower to be left to the free market. Parties must not be capable of being bought and sold to the highest or most powerful bidder. Indeed, they must be free from those who support financially all parties but the unfavoured ones.

Corporate donations from companies, trade unions and pressure groups must be prohibited. Individual donations must be limited in size and frequency.

Unlike the other parties, we believe in freedom of expression for all, for our opponents as well as our friends. This freedom of expression must be guaranteed by law. The only exceptions in the political sphere should be advocacy of violence, breach of official secrets legislation and civil remedies for defamation.

We believe in freedom of the press and broadcasting media. However, that freedom must not be a freedom to lie, defame and support the media’s friends. There must be prohibitions on the press acting as an election sponsor that is exempt from limits on electoral expenditure. There must be affordable and effective means of challenging untruths, especially during an election campaign. There must be a statutory right of reply.

Freedom of the press and broadcasting media is not enough. There must be freedom of access to the press and broadcasting media for all parties – particularly at election time. In particular, there must be a statutory right of reply to allegations and slurs in the press and broadcasting media.

Local government boundaries must reflect local identifications and loyalties.

Law and Justice

We are determined that England and Wales should continue to use their Common Law System, with judicial precedent and its adversarial form of trial. Scotland and Northern Ireland would remain free to continue to use their own systems that are guaranteed by law.

The strength of our criminal justice system lies in regulated police procedure, an independent prosecution service and trial by jury.

The civil actions for the recovery of debts by individuals and small and medium-sized businesses must be made more efficient. Small businesses must be protected from vexatious claims.

Our criminal law must provide strong deterrent and preventative sentences for repeat offenders and those convicted of the worst crimes. While some first-time offenders react favourably to rehabilitative sentences, there are others who require strong, specific deterrent sentences to dissuade them from committing further offences. Furthermore, it is necessary to have dissuasive general deterrent sentences for potential offenders. A significant minority of offenders are irredeemable recidivists from whom society needs protection for a long, indefinite period.

The question of whether or not a sentence of capital punishment should be available to the courts for people convicted on conclusive evidence of the worst categories of murder should be decided by a referendum.

Individual Freedoms

The Human Rights Act (a codification of the European Convention on Human Rights) would need to be repealed and replaced by a British Fundamental Freedoms Act that would concentrate on the freedoms essential to a democratic and civilised society. We would seek inspiration from our own Common Law, historic charters and statutes for the preservation of our rights rather than less-than-perfect continental role models.

Our priority must be to protect and extend those freedoms that are essential to a civilised and democratic society: freedom from torture, ill-treatment, and cruel and unusual punishments, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom to contest and to campaign in elections.

Freedom of expression must be subject to the fewest exceptions (such as clear advocacy of violence). Freedom of association must include the freedom to form and shape parties and groups without any interference from the state.

All race relations legislation must be repealed. It is either undesirable, unnecessary or both.

We believe that employees must have protection from unfair dismissal, for example when carried out on account of the employee’s political beliefs or affiliations. However, the concept of unfairness does not need to be reinforced by discrimination legislation.

We do not believe that the recipients of goods and services from the private sector need to be protected by discrimination legislation.

We do not accept that there should be restrictions on freedom of expression to accommodate a supposed freedom not to be offended.

We recognise that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is one of the most necessary pieces of legislation, protecting suspects and investigating officers from false accusations. It matches the provision of necessary investigative powers to the police with safeguards for the rights of suspects.

First of all, we must assert our complete control over our own foreign policy. Our withdrawal from the European Union would immediately free us from whatever involvement we might have in an EU common foreign policy with the High Representative and the European External Action Service.

We must not allow our foreign policy to be hijacked by other states. In particular, we must avoid any partisan involvement in the Middle East or exploitation by the United States administration of our supposed special relationship with that country. We do not want Britain to carry out the role of the world’s policeman. Our service personnel must not be sent to die in foreign wars in which we have no vital interests at stake.

Foreign Policy and Defence

We are not indifferent to the need to maintain world peace and we would use our permanent position on the UN Security Council to that end, but we would not send our servicemen to die in other nations’ conflicts. Our foreign policy must be dictated by the need to protect our people, territory, and vital interests.

We have no animosity towards any state or people, and we would endeavour to maintain peaceful relations with all. However, we would defend ourselves against any aggressor with vigour and determination.

Our opposition to sending our troops to die in foreign wars should not be understood to mean that our present level of service personnel is too high. We are aware that real threats to our people, our territory and our vital interests can occur at any time without being predicted by the security services. We must have the men ready to meet any threat to our nation at a moment’s notice.

Even in peacetime, troops can be, and are, deployed to deal with civil emergencies, including intentional disorder. They will also be needed to help to guard our borders against mass immigration.

Our troops must be in a permanent state of readiness and protected by life-defending equipment of the highest quality.

Britain must neither be a warmonger intent on pointless wars nor a nation of pacifists and appeasers. We should enjoy peace as a legacy of the strength and resolution to defend what is ours. Our forces have sometimes been weakened by ill-considered defence cuts, which have resulted in huge unnecessary expenditures. This is best exemplified by the removal of HMS Endurance from patrols around the Falklands Islands in 1981. This was seen by Argentina as an invitation to invade.

We are determined that Britain must retain an independent nuclear deterrent. A nuclear war would be a nightmare, but the way to prevent it is for responsible nations like ours to retain our power of ultimate resistance.

Education

We, alone among the Parties, acknowledge that observed differences in academic ability are attributable to differences in heredity to a greater extent than to differences in nurture. However, we see these as differences in kind of ability as much as differences in level of ability. It is, therefore, important that the type of schooling received depends on the abilities of the children concerned.

We are in favour of selection, but we do not favour the old style of selection that condemned many children, often unfairly, to an inferior form of secondary education. There was a lack of uniformity in the method of selection and even in the percentages of pupils allowed to pass. Secondary moderns were often starved of resources.

We should see future selection as being on the basis of vertical divisions between types of ability rather than horizontal divisions between levels of ability. However, all selections must be uniform, flexible and subject to regular reviews. Schools (or streams within the same school) for the less academic should not be allowed to provide an inferior quality of education. Schools for all pupils must receive equivalent funding.

Primary education must ensure that all capable children, without exception, are functionally literate, numerate and capable of using information technology. Early diagnosis of impediments to learning is essential to the provision of a fair educational system.

There are many other qualities, apart from academic ability, that need to be recognised and nurtured in children: a spirit of inquiry, honesty, reliability, sporting ability and teamwork. These qualities are just as important.

Religious education in ordinary state schools would be taught from a non-denominational Christian perspective. However, it would not be unduly prescriptive. Parents would continue to have a right to withdraw their children from such classes.

Discipline must be restored to our schools. Those whose disruptive behaviour does not respond to the corrective policies of the school must be removed and taught in separate institutions.

In our view, university education has expanded beyond need and beyond the ability of the economy to absorb graduates in positions commensurate with their expectations, degrees and educational outlay. This expansion led inexorably to the end of maintenance grants and the charging of students with tuition fees. The result of all of this is that nearly all graduates, apart from those from very rich families, leave university with enormous debts. Furthermore, they often have to accept jobs that would have been available to them as school leavers. We should explain to those who wish to join the professions, including law and accountancy, that there are alternative routes without the need to go to university.

We believe that those with the finest intellects, whose intelligence is matched by conscientiousness and a need for their field of study, should be able to earn the right to have their tuition fees to be paid and even to receive a maintenance grant.

The United Kingdom needs to have the benefits of a new industrial revolution. This would require an education system that pushes education in science and technology to the head of its priorities.

Economic Policy

We believe in private enterprise, but we do not subscribe to the view that there should be no economic regulation by the state. We would pursue a policy of Economic Nationalism. In particular, we do not believe in unrestricted international trade when it has plainly destroyed much of our manufacturing industry. We would seek the rebuilding of our manufacturing industry with state assistance if necessary. Globalisation – the free movement of goods, services and even people around the world can have only one result: that all wage levels throughout the world will approximate to the same level.

Macroeconomic policy must be based on the principle that what is physically possible must be financially possible; otherwise, there is something wrong with the financial system. This means that if there are unemployed workers and unsatisfied needs that they could fulfil, the financial system must facilitate the satisfaction of those needs.

The current financial system is one in which much of the money supply is created by private banks based on the banks’ need to make a profit rather than the needs of the economy. The quantity and form of money in circulation must be under the control of the Bank of England, which must be independent of the government of the day.

The ways in which governments of different political persuasions try to reduce unemployment and restore business activity are many and varied. Both the Keynesian and Friedman approaches are flawed. We need a system that quickly causes activity to return without causing inflation by precipitate increases in demand. We need to produce reflation without inflation.

The Structure of Business

We favour private enterprise for most areas of the economy. However, we believe that natural monopolies such as the postal system and, eventually, the railways should be publicly owned in the form of public corporations.

We believe that private enterprise should be extended to as many people as possible by encouraging self-employment, small and medium-sized businesses, employee share ownership schemes, such as those provided by Marks & Spencer, and full employee partnership, such as the John Lewis Partnership / Waitrose.

We do not approve of the process of Globalisation or the political and economic ideology of Globalism, which advocates the process. However, global and multinational companies are a fact in the modern world. If it were not for Honda and Nissan plants in the UK, we would have a much depleted car manufacturing industry.

If global or multi-national companies wish to sell their products in Britain, the assumption is that they should manufacture their goods in Britain, employing British people.

We would review carefully such practices as transfer pricing, whereby global corporations seek to transfer their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes to the Exchequer.

In the longer term, of course, we should like to re-establish British manufacturing industry, owned by British companies. We believe that British utilities should be controlled by British companies.

Social Welfare and Housing

When suitable jobs are available, claimants must be expected to seek them. Neither the state nor the claimants can be complacent about the problem of the long-term unemployed. However, it serves no purpose for state officials to harass claimants to apply for jobs that do not exist. The state has a duty to ensure that work is provided to satisfy real needs, so there are no long-term unemployed.

The present perceived need to build more and more houses on precious green field sites is fuelled by endless large-scale immigration. If we were to stop immigration and put the process into reverse, the housing crisis would disappear.

Meanwhile, people with local roots must receive statutory preference over recent arrivals.

Housing – Homes for Britons 

The ultimate purpose of any Nationalist housing policy is not merely expanding home ownership but to ensure ALL Britons have a roof over their heads. Moreover, if we are serious about increasing the native British population, then young families definitely need a good home they can afford!

Mass immigration has obviously put an incredible strain on Britain’s housing stock. Homes, whether mortgaged or rented, are subject to extremely limited availability. 

When our borders are finally closed and mass deportations commence, this aspect of immigration, i.e. the devastating effect on housing supply, will end.

Nonetheless, fundamental problems remain with Britain’s housing policies. The issue is twofold. The regular routine of constantly rising house prices and interest rates means a family, a couple, or an individual needs a decent, consistent income even to step foot on the housing ladder. Loss of income often means loss of home. The prices in Britain’s housing market have been seriously out of control since the late 1980s. British people, particularly young British families, need a home not just as a sound financial investment but also for reasons of independence from family and the private sovereignty of actually owning their own property.  

The second part of the problem is the deliberate elimination of Public Housing. The mass sale of council homes, which really started in 1980, has dramatically reduced the number of dwellings available for people who want to rent or can only afford to rent. Former council homes were public property, in trust, to the whole nation. For the benefit of ALL Britons, if they needed them. Substituting the former public housing programme for the jungle of private landlords has been a disaster for ordinary people, causing stress, debt, homelessness, and it has been greatly detrimental to public finances (Housing Benefit). Greedy landlords (often foreign) have raked in billions by charging exorbitant rents inevitably paid by Housing Benefit. Even a working couple often has to claim Housing Benefit to afford a very high rent.

If Britain is to survive (and prosper), our people (native Britons) must reproduce. They can only reproduce in sufficient numbers if they have a secure roof over their heads, whether it’s through mortgages or rent.

A population must be adequately housed. The British Democrats will resolve this crucial issue. Through acts of political will, a situation will be created whereby our people can pay their mortgage or rent. The following are the policies ensuring British Homes For British People!

A government department will be established called NATIONAL COMMUNITY HOUSING (British Homes)

Home Ownership. Muslim families often successfully purchase domestic properties through Islamic banks. In their culture, usury is forbidden and strictly prohibited. An Islamic bank only applies service charges from which a small profit can be acquired. Their method of finance means they promote the welfare, security and expansion of their people!

(A) Therefore, we need Municipal Banks throughout Britain that can provide the necessary finance so our people can purchase homes. With special emphasis and support for young families. An opportunity to obtain their own property and pay back the debt realistically, without stringent interest rates!

(B) The government, through National Community Housing, will form partnerships with top British building companies, certainly those who have a reputation for quality building work, efficiency, timed schedules and reasonable prices. A programme of building properties (which the government would sell) and rental properties (for the public sector) would begin. 

Municipal banks will enable British people to have the chance to buy these new homes. The building companies would be entitled to a segment of the rents from the public housing properties. In addition, the long-term contracts the government would issue to said companies would contain various concessions and financial advantages. This would guarantee the enthusiasm for these companies to build British homes. The remainder of rents would be collected by the local authorities for admin, repairs and emergencies. These councils will, again, thus have a valuable source of income.

The interconnection (partnership) between government, councils, building companies and ordinary people will create a mechanism that means each element gets what it wants. Similar to operations of this nature in Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

(C) Britain, though a small island, has plenty of Brownfield sites! New buildings could be commenced on obvious wasteland, derelict buildings, unused office blocks, and underused car parks, etc. These will be used for our comprehensive house-building programme. Some of these sites will be acquired for government use by Compulsory Purchase Orders if necessary.

(D) Utilisation of Brownfield sites will ensure the protection of our precious heritage of Britain’s countryside. Preserve our Green Belt!

Public Housing. We prefer our people to own their own homes, but also recognise that millions of Britons will still need public housing. This is not about profits and the ‘needs of the market’; this is about essential shelter for our people.

New Public Housing properties will charge rents that reflect regional salaries and local conditions. This will vastly reduce the nation’s colossal Housing Benefit bill.

Where the private housing market still operates, rent controls will be applied in some areas. Housing is not a consumer choice that you have control over (i.e., buying a pair of shoes); it’s something people must have.

Private landlords have been charging ridiculous rents for decades now. Look at studio flats in central London circa. £1500.00 per month for a room with a toilet/bathroom and a kitchen sink! Landlords will have to reduce their rents to sensible levels. They cannot expect endless subsidies via the British Treasury (Housing Benefit) to feed their vile avarice!

Homelessness – A disgraceful situation more reminiscent of Victorian Britain than 21st-century Britain. This misery has been greatly exacerbated since the 1980s and made worse by mass immigration and the treason and neglect of establishment politicians. Specialist local units will tackle, through various measures, the four worst categories of ‘street sleepers’ – the mentally ill, those who have a substance addiction and youngsters, often the tragic victims of domestic abuse. We will expand emergency accommodation. We look after ALL of our people, especially those who are really unfortunate.

Architecture – From the 1960s onwards, various brands of liberal degenerates, Marxist freaks and other shady ‘fast buck’ characters inflicted upon the British landscape, architecture not just ugly and soulless, but something seemingly designed to destroy the human spirit. Whether it’s a concrete ‘giant elephant’ or a twisted ‘glass and steel’ monstrosity, so-called Avant Garde, modern architects have condemned our people to living in these hideous building apparitions. Much of the fault lies with lazy, incompetent, and corrupt local councillors who wave through most schemes.

A British Democrats government will reclaim the fine architectural traditions of the ancient world and European styles before the 20th century.

Architecture in tune with Man and Nature!

Regarding large-scale constructions, the local authority (as well as the national government) should be compelled to consult the relevant local population over the design/redesign. Their views must be sought.

Summary – National Community Homes (British Homes) will operate, initially, as a nationwide concern. However, powers will eventually be devolved to local authorities (on a county or town basis). Municipal banks specially created with a singular purpose (housing) will liaise directly with the central government for this vital national project!

Finance – The building of new homes and acquisition of old ones will be paid for out of general public expenditure. There will be no interest element. The government will create the necessary credit, which will cause microscopic levels of inflation, but these are tiny compared to the impact of borrowing from international finance. The new credit will be absorbed into the wealth creation of building/acquiring homes for Britons.

Private Purchase – Public Rental – Government credit will enable young British families to purchase their own homes and realistically pay for them, without financial stress. 

Millions will have the opportunity to rent (again) a home through public housing. The rents will reflect local conditions, i.e. salary, employment, etc. This will mean it will be easy to pay the rent! 

There will be a massive decrease in Britain’s Housing Benefits bill, now 30 billion pounds! Housing Benefit is the single biggest item for the Treasury!

The reintroduction of Public Housing will eventually provide revenues for local authorities and revive local democratic control of housing through councillors, not private landlords.

Private Landlords – Always a place for them, but why should the British state sponsor their essentially business purposes? As stated previously, Housing Benefit is now £30 billion. Therefore, Local Housing Allowances will be reduced to a local rent that reflects local conditions, salaries, and the actual ability to pay. If someone wishes to pay exorbitant private rents, that is their business. 

However, if private landlords are unhappy with our reform of Local Housing Allowances, they have the option of reducing rents (if they are too high!) or selling their properties.

Homelessness – A budget will be set aside to ensure no Briton is sleeping on the streets. Specialist teams and hostels will ensure the real homeless, our people, are protected!

Care Homes – Clear-cut and unarguable. Elderly Care homes and any other private care homes will come back under public control. Care Homes is not a business; they exist to look after our people. 

‘Care in the Community’ will be scrapped. Dangerous, mentally ill individuals will be sent to and remain in secure units for their safety and the general public’s.

Architecture & Brownfield Sites – Beauty comes from nature. Ugly, concrete ‘new art’ comes from the brutalist styles of the former Soviet Eastern Europe. This contrived vandalism will not be tolerated. To preserve our Green Belt, we will utilise all manner of Brownfield sites, but we will also introduce the countryside to the inner city. Trees, parks, canals and gardens will be integrated with all new developments.

CONCLUSION: National Community Housing (British Homes) will ensure that housing is not just about profits but also about enabling the indigenous population to reproduce themselves in family units with secure mortgages and protected (rental) tenancies.

We will treat the housing issue as an ‘operation of war’. Many will own their own homes, but we will always retain a sufficient stock of Public Housing for everyone (the biggest downfall of privatisation is that you can only sell something once!).

The nation is the ‘family of families’—a giant family!

Let us get Britons off the streets, out of hostels, away from ‘sofa surfing’ and hopeless, long housing lists—British Homes for British People. Our Nation Is Your Home!

Health

We are completely committed to the National Health Service. However, we are concerned that the National Health Service has become international both in its service providers and in patients.

Medical practitioners and nurses are often looted from Third World countries that can ill afford to train them. It is utterly immoral for the developed world to recruit healthcare staff from poor countries when those workers are needed to care for their compatriots at home.

We need to help poor countries to train their brightest and best to become medical practitioners and nurses, with distance learning packages managed by volunteers – especially by those with ties to the countries in question. The beneficiaries of this help would be contractually bound to devote their careers to the care of their own people.

Britain has talented and conscientious people within our own populations who can easily be educated and trained to provide the full range of medical services. The GMC has revealed that doctors trained abroad are disproportionately likely to be struck off or suspended for misconduct or incompetence.

The National Health Service was established on the assumption that it would provide care for the British people and not the people of the whole world. Health tourists must not be allowed to use the services of the NHS.

The administrative costs of the health service are disproportionately high. There must be a shift of funding towards those providing health services directly to the patient.

Agriculture

Agriculture and stock keeping constitute a sector of the economy that, more than any other, cannot be left to the vagaries of the free market. Government intervention is essential. The survival of our agricultural sector is more important than any other.

Firstly, our very survival might depend, in emergencies, on our ability to feed ourselves. Secondly, if any further agricultural land were to be lost to urbanisation, we should be saying goodbye to rural Britain.

The sector must be supported because the market conditions are quite different. Demand is price inelastic, and supply is also inelastic in the short term because it is dependent on forces outside of the control of the producer. Prices must not be left to market forces.

Our preference would be for deficiency payments that keep prices low rather than the EU system of intervention, which pushes prices up.

The Environment

We extend our concern for the indigenous British people to the welfare of the environment of our national homeland, the British Isles. We regard the principal threat to our environment as lying in the excessive and ever-rising overcrowding of our islands.

Our homeland is not just full up. It is bursting at the seams. England and Wales in particular, where the overwhelming majority of our people live, has become one of the most densely peopled areas of its size in the world, far more crowded than our major European neighbours. The cause of that is Immigration.

Most of the unprecedented 3.7 million increase in the population of England and Wales in the ten years to the last 2011 Census is officially admitted to be the result of ongoing Immigration. The rest is due to higher birth rates amongst ethnic groups of post-1948 Immigrant origin.

In our view, overcrowding causes almost all the other problems afflicting our environment. Urban sprawl, the unrelenting pressure to build ever more houses on what remains of our countryside to house ever more people, and to use ever more intensive farming methods to try to feed them. These intensive farming methods are recognised as the main threat to our native wildlife, notably wild birds. Overcrowding also strains our transport system, resulting in jam-packed motorways and commuter trains.

Worse in the long run, the fact that our islands now have far more people jammed onto them than they can sustainably support or feed means we are ever more dangerously dependent on an ever more complex, ever more fragile web of global trade for food, fuel, energy and vital raw materials.

We would, therefore, protect the environment of the British Isles and the quality of life of the British people by stopping all further Immigration completely. Our islands are full up and cannot take any more people settling on them. We would further, as already stated, encourage Immigrant communities to return to their countries of origin.

Given that the birth rate amongst the native British population has fallen substantially below replacement levels if our land were inhabited only by its own people, the population of our islands would stabilise at an environmentally sustainable level, giving a much-improved quality of life for all. That is our aim.

Culture

We maintain that the settlement of our country by large numbers of foreign people from around the world does not enrich our culture or promote multiculturalism and diversity. On the contrary, the effect, here and around the world, of mass migration is, we believe, to impoverish everyone’s culture, destroying diversity and replacing it with a commercialised, homogenised global lowest-common-denominator pop planet-wide monoculture which benefits no one except for the giant multinational corporations whose worldwide marketing this makes easier.

In contrast, as Nationalists, we support real diversity. We want a sustainable multicultural world of diverse nations rather than the destruction of every culture – and the diverse ethnicities that uniquely created it – everywhere in the name of Big Business-driven global pop monoculture.

We would, therefore, maintain and enhance our nation, with its ancient ethnocultural identities, Scots, Ulster, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and last but not least, English, our traditional folk cultures and musical heritages, and the languages underlying them, as a hotspot of rich, indigenous cultural diversity.

We would encourage other peoples and nations around the world to do likewise. Thus, the world will not lose everyone’s culture in a homogenised mass mess; instead, it will celebrate and preserve the rich cultural diversity, heritage, and ethnicities of the world.

On a global level, and in the long run, we Nationalists are the only true friends of multiculturalism and diversity, which those who parrot those Politically Correct catchphrases would, in fact, destroy for everyone everywhere.

No to Islamification

• The British Democrats reject the creeping Islamisation of our towns and cities and stand against the political cowardice that allows it to happen.

• We will protect the British way of life for future generations, ensuring that our language, heritage, and freedoms are never compromised.

• No religious group should be permitted to establish parallel legal systems, religious courts, or privilege that override or bypass British law.

• We will abolish all sharia councils and prohibit any legal recognition of religious rulings that contradict the principles of equality before the law.

• The British Democrats will defend free speech, including the right to openly criticise and debate Islam as with any other ideology or religion.

• We will repeal or reform all hate speech laws that seek to criminalise legitimate criticism of Islam or any other religion.

• The blasphemy laws from Islamic countries have no place in Britain, and we will not allow their influence here under the terms of offence or hate.

• We will introduce a zero-tolerance policy on Islamist extremism, including proscription of groups, mosques, and charities that promote or excuse violence.

• We will also investigate and expose foreign funding of radical mosques and religious centres.

• We oppose the Islamic practice of polygamy, which is illegal under British law but too often tolerated in practice.

• Impose a ban on ritual slaughter without prior stunning. Such practices are at odds with the core British commitment to animal welfare. We oppose any exemptions to animal welfare legislation based on religious beliefs.

Ban the Burqa

• The burqa symbolises Islamic dominance and the rejection of Western culture in the regions where it is worn. Many European countries have laws that ban some facial coverings, like the burqa and niqab. These laws can vary. Some only limit these coverings in public places, while others apply to specific locations, such as schools.

Countries with Burka Bans

• France, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria have a ban on full-face Islamic veils in public.

• Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Netherlands, have bans restricting face coverings in public places such as hospitals and schools.

Increase surveillance of Islamist websites

• Increase surveillance of Islamist websites and the activity of those frequenting Islamist websites and forums, and monitor social networks for Islamist activity. According to MI5, there are thousands of Islamist extremists working in organised groups, actively plotting terror attacks on British soil. Rather than targeting individuals for expressing legitimate criticisms of multiculturalism and mass immigration, the Government should redirect its efforts towards implementing internet censorship strategically to combat the threats of terrorism and child grooming. This focused approach is essential for ensuring the safety and security of our communities.

Stop Muslim Child Grooming Gangs

The Islamophobia Excuse

• The Pakistani Muslim men involved in the Rotherham Grooming Scandal received preferential treatment because of their race and religion. Authorities were often afraid of being labelled as racist or Islamophobic, allowing these crimes to go unchecked. Such accusations discredit those who expose child groomers, even after convictions. This fear has hindered effective police action against grooming gangs. It’s not a ‘phobia’ to question a belief system that preaches inequality and violence. Every individual deserves to receive equal treatment under the law.

Longer prison sentences

• A member of a grooming gang received a mere 3 years (36 months) for the brutal rape of a 13-year-old girl. In contrast, Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for a social media post.

Sentences for grooming gang members and rapists are unjust and inadequate. So, longer prison sentences for sexual offenders are long overdue. The lifelong effects on grooming gang victims are rarely taken into account. Light sentences are probably given because of the fear of being labelled Islamophobic or Racist.

Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse

Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse will impose criminal penalties on police officers, social workers, and caregivers who fail to act. Victims of grooming gangs have often been ignored, leaving them vulnerable. This requirement will hold officers accountable and prioritise the safety of our children, ensuring that those in authority understand their duty to report and intervene.

Here are our Policies in Welsh
Dyma ein Polisïau yn y Gymraeg

POLISÏAU

Y Blaid Hunaniaeth Brydeinig

Rydym yn cydnabod y gellir priodoli cymeriad unigryw a chyflawniadau enfawr pobl Prydain, i raddau helaeth, i’w hachau. Nid cynnyrch diwylliannau nodedig yw pobloedd neilltuol; mae diwylliannau nodedig yn gynnyrch pobloedd nodedig. Mae bodolaeth y boblogaeth frodorol o dan fygythiad digynsail. Bydd dinistr ein pobl yn arwain at ddinistrio ein treftadaeth.
Mae cenedligrwydd yn cael ei gaffael trwy dras ac, yn wahanol i ddinasyddiaeth, ni ellir ei gaffael trwy amhariad cyfreithiol. Dylai dinasyddiaeth fod yn seiliedig ar Genedligrwydd, ond yn gwbl anghywir, mae wedi’i rhoi i bobl nad ydynt yn ddinasyddion Prydeinig. Ers 1948, bu newidiadau demograffig enfawr heb unrhyw ymgynghori â’r etholwyr.
Rydym wedi ymrwymo i atal disodli pobl Prydain yn eu gwlad enedigol. Mae’r Democratiaid Prydeinig yn galw am atal/moratoriwm ar fewnfudo am ddeng mlynedd ar unwaith a fyddai’n arwain at setliad parhaol ac felly’n tynnu’r Deyrnas Unedig yn ôl o:

(1) Confensiwn Ffoaduriaid 1951 y Cenhedloedd Unedig.

(2) Y Confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar Hawliau Dynol (ECHR).

(3) Y Compact Byd-eang ar gyfer Ymfudo.
Mae sôn am leihau mewnfudo net i’w orfodi i ddisodli’r boblogaeth frodorol. Byddai mewnfudwyr anghyfreithlon a mewnfudwyr sydd wedi cyflawni troseddau difrifol yn cael eu dychwelyd ar unwaith. Byddai mewnfudwyr eraill, yn enwedig y rhai annirnadwy, yn cael cymhellion i ddychwelyd i’w gwledydd gwreiddiol, a byddai’r gwledydd hynny’n cael cymhellion i’w croesawu.

Mae ein brand o Genedlaetholdeb yn sicr yn nwydd i’w allforio; gall hefyd gael ei drosglwyddo i’r lleiafrifoedd ethnig yn ein plith. Pam y dylen nhw setlo am fod yn Brydeinwyr eilradd pan ellir eu hannog trwy grantiau ailsefydlu hael i ddod yn aelodau balch o’u cenhedloedd?

Byddai cyfreithiau sy’n rhoi triniaeth ffafriol i fewnfudwyr a lleiafrifoedd ethnig yn cael eu diddymu.

Ni fyddai ceiswyr lloches yn cael eu derbyn oni bai eu bod wedi cael eu dewis ar gyfer cam-drin ac os mai Prydain oedd y wlad ddiogel gyntaf iddynt ddod ar ei thraws. Mae ceiswyr lloches sy’n teithio trwy neu dros sawl gwlad ddiogel cyn cyrraedd Prydain yn dod yn fewnfudwyr o ddewis. Byddai ymgeiswyr llwyddiannus am statws lloches yn cael aros nes bod gwlad ddiogel yn eu rhan eu hunain o’r byd yn gallu eu lletya.

Sofraniaeth y Deyrnas Unedig

Rhaid i’r Deyrnas Unedig dynnu’n ôl o bob sefydliad rhyngwladol sy’n tresmasu ar ein sofraniaeth drwy wneud penderfyniadau gweithredol-deddfwriaethol neu farnwrol ar ran Prydain.
Byddem, felly, yn tynnu’n ôl yn unochrog o Brotocol Gogledd Iwerddon/Cytundeb Fframwaith Windsor, gan ddileu holl gyfraith yr UE ac unrhyw gyfyngiadau masnach rhwng Gogledd Iwerddon a Phrydain Fawr yn llwyr. Byddwn yn adfer Gogledd Iwerddon fel rhan annatod o’r Deyrnas Unedig.
Fe wnaethom bleidleisio i’r Deyrnas Unedig gyfan adael yr UE, ond mae’r Ceidwadwyr wedi bradychu pobl Gogledd Iwerddon, ac ni fyddai’r Blaid Lafur yn ddim gwahanol.
Adfer rheolaeth lwyr dros ein dyfroedd pysgota cyn gynted â phosibl – dyma’r hyn y gwnaethom bleidleisio drosto yn refferendwm 2016.
Rhaid ystyried ein haelodaeth o bob sefydliad rhyngwladol arall yn ofalus ac, os oes angen, ei ail-drafod er mwyn atal unrhyw danseilio ar ein sofraniaeth.

Rydym yn cefnogi ein haelodaeth barhaus o’r Cenhedloedd Unedig a byddem yn gwrthwynebu unrhyw ymgais i ildio neu gymryd ein sedd barhaol ar y Cyngor Diogelwch. Dylem geisio defnyddio’r sedd honno i warchod buddiannau Prydain a’n cyfeillion ac i hybu heddwch ac ewyllys da rhyngwladol. Byddem yn gwrthwynebu defnyddio’r sedd honno i hyrwyddo polisïau pleidiol gwladwriaethau eraill.

Cywirdeb Tiriogaethol y Deyrnas Gyfunol

Byddem yn gwrthwynebu’n llwyr unrhyw symudiad i chwalu’r Deyrnas Unedig drwy annibyniaeth i’r Alban neu ildio Gogledd Iwerddon i Weriniaeth Iwerddon.

Rydym yn derbyn y trefniadau datganoli presennol ar gyfer Gogledd Iwerddon. Fodd bynnag, yr ydym yn siomedig ynghylch cynnwys dynion gwn yr IRA nad ydynt yn edifar yn llywodraethiant y Dalaith.

Mae’r ffaith bod gan Gymru, yr Alban, a Gogledd Iwerddon Gynulliadau neu Seneddau datganoledig yn golygu y byddai’n briodol i Loegr gael Senedd ddatganoledig, ar yr amod bod cefnogaeth etholiadol iddi wedi’i mynegi mewn refferendwm.

Ein System Lywodraethu

Rydym yn cefnogi’r system o frenhiniaeth gyfansoddiadol ac yn credu y dylai’r sawl sy’n llwyddo yn ôl y gyfraith i fod yn frenhines i ni feddiannu swydd Pennaeth Gwladol y Deyrnas Unedig. Rhaid i’r frenhines, wrth gwrs, allu gwrthsefyll ymdrechion gan wleidyddion plaid i ddefnyddio’r frenhiniaeth at ei dibenion ei hun.

Rydym yn credu mewn Democratiaeth Seneddol ac yn Llywodraeth y Cabinet sy’n atebol i Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig. Byddai Pennaeth y Llywodraeth, wrth gwrs, yn parhau i fod yn Brif Weinidog. Fodd bynnag, credwn yn y defnydd o refferendwm i ystyried pob cwestiwn o bwysigrwydd cenedlaethol mawr.

Mae democratiaeth yn flodyn rhy fregus i’w adael i’r farchnad rydd. Ni ddylai partïon allu cael eu prynu a’u gwerthu i’r cynigydd uchaf neu fwyaf pwerus. Yn wir, rhaid iddynt fod yn rhydd oddi wrth y rhai sy’n cefnogi’n ariannol bob plaid ond y rhai anffafriol.
Rhaid gwahardd rhoddion corfforaethol gan gwmnïau, undebau llafur a charfanau pwyso. Rhaid i roddion unigol fod yn gyfyngedig o ran maint ac amlder.
Yn wahanol i’r pleidiau eraill, credwn mewn rhyddid mynegiant i bawb, i’n gwrthwynebwyr yn ogystal â’n cyfeillion. Rhaid i’r rhyddid mynegiant hwn gael ei warantu gan y gyfraith. Yr unig eithriadau yn y byd gwleidyddol ddylai fod eiriolaeth o drais, torri deddfwriaeth cyfrinachau swyddogol a rhwymedïau sifil ar gyfer difenwi.

Credwn yn rhyddid y wasg a’r cyfryngau darlledu. Fodd bynnag, ni ddylai’r rhyddid hwnnw fod yn ryddid i ddweud celwydd, difenwi a chefnogi ffrindiau’r cyfryngau. Rhaid cael gwaharddiadau ar y wasg rhag gweithredu fel noddwr etholiad sydd wedi’i eithrio rhag cyfyngiadau ar wariant etholiadol. Rhaid cael dulliau fforddiadwy ac effeithiol o herio anwireddau, yn enwedig yn ystod ymgyrch etholiadol. Rhaid cael hawl statudol i ymateb.

Nid yw rhyddid y wasg a’r cyfryngau darlledu yn ddigon. Rhaid cael rhyddid mynediad i’r wasg a’r cyfryngau darlledu i bob plaid – yn enwedig adeg etholiad. Yn benodol, rhaid cael hawl statudol i ymateb i honiadau a slyrs yn y wasg a’r cyfryngau darlledu.

Rhaid i ffiniau llywodraeth leol adlewyrchu hunaniaeth a theyrngarwch lleol.

Cyfraith a Chyfiawnder

Rydym yn benderfynol y dylai Cymru a Lloegr barhau i ddefnyddio eu System Cyfraith Gwlad, gyda chynsail barnwrol a’i ffurf wrthwynebus o dreial. Byddai’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn parhau’n rhydd i barhau i ddefnyddio eu systemau eu hunain sy’n cael eu gwarantu gan y gyfraith.

Cryfder ein system cyfiawnder troseddol yw gweithdrefn reoleiddiedig yr heddlu, gwasanaeth erlyn annibynnol a threial gan reithgor.

Rhaid gwneud y camau sifil ar gyfer adennill dyledion gan unigolion a busnesau bach a chanolig yn fwy effeithlon. Rhaid diogelu busnesau bach rhag honiadau blinderus.

Mae’n rhaid i’n cyfraith droseddol ddarparu dedfrydau ataliol ac ataliol cryf i droseddwyr mynych a’r rhai a gafwyd yn euog o’r troseddau gwaethaf. Er bod rhai troseddwyr tro cyntaf yn ymateb yn ffafriol i ddedfrydau adsefydlu, mae eraill sydd angen dedfrydau ataliol cryf, penodol i’w hannog i beidio â chyflawni troseddau pellach. At hynny, mae angen cael dedfrydau ataliol cyffredinol anghymhellol ar gyfer darpar droseddwyr. Mae lleiafrif sylweddol o droseddwyr yn atgladdwyr anadferadwy ac mae angen amddiffyn cymdeithas rhagddynt am gyfnod hir, amhenodol.

Dylai’r cwestiwn a ddylai dedfryd o gosb eithaf fod ar gael i’r llysoedd i bobl a gafwyd yn euog ar dystiolaeth bendant o’r categorïau gwaethaf o lofruddiaeth gael ei benderfynu gan refferendwm.

Rhyddid Unigol

Byddai angen diddymu’r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol (codeiddiad o’r Confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar Hawliau Dynol) a’i disodli gan Ddeddf Rhyddid Sylfaenol Prydain a fyddai’n canolbwyntio ar y rhyddid sy’n hanfodol i gymdeithas ddemocrataidd a gwâr. Byddem yn ceisio ysbrydoliaeth gan ein Cyfraith Gwlad ein hunain, ein siarteri hanesyddol a’n statudau ar gyfer cadw ein hawliau yn hytrach na modelau rôl cyfandirol llai na pherffaith.

Rhaid i’n blaenoriaeth fod i amddiffyn ac ymestyn y rhyddidau hynny sy’n hanfodol i gymdeithas wâr a democrataidd: rhyddid rhag artaith, cam-drin, a chosbau creulon ac anarferol, rhyddid mynegiant, rhyddid i gymdeithasu, rhyddid i ymgynnull, a rhyddid i ymryson. ac i ymgyrchu mewn etholiadau.

Rhaid i ryddid mynegiant fod yn amodol ar y lleiaf o eithriadau (fel eiriolaeth glir o drais). Rhaid i ryddid cymdeithasu gynnwys y rhyddid i ffurfio a siapio partïon a grwpiau heb unrhyw ymyrraeth gan y wladwriaeth.

Rhaid diddymu pob deddfwriaeth cysylltiadau hiliol. Mae naill ai’n annymunol, yn ddiangen neu’r ddau.

Credwn fod yn rhaid i weithwyr gael eu hamddiffyn rhag diswyddiad annheg, er enghraifft pan gaiff ei wneud oherwydd credoau neu gysylltiadau gwleidyddol y cyflogai. Fodd bynnag, nid oes angen i’r cysyniad o annhegwch gael ei atgyfnerthu gan ddeddfwriaeth gwahaniaethu.

Nid ydym yn credu bod angen i dderbynwyr nwyddau a gwasanaethau o’r sector preifat gael eu diogelu gan ddeddfwriaeth gwahaniaethu.

Nid ydym yn derbyn y dylai fod cyfyngiadau ar ryddid mynegiant i ddarparu ar gyfer rhyddid tybiedig i beidio â chael eich tramgwyddo.

Rydym yn cydnabod mai Deddf yr Heddlu a Thystiolaeth Droseddol 1984 yw un o’r darnau mwyaf angenrheidiol o ddeddfwriaeth, sy’n diogelu pobl a ddrwgdybir ac yn ymchwilio i swyddogion rhag cyhuddiadau ffug. Mae’n paru’r ddarpariaeth o bwerau ymchwilio angenrheidiol i’r heddlu â mesurau diogelu ar gyfer hawliau’r rhai a ddrwgdybir.

Yn gyntaf oll, rhaid inni fynnu ein rheolaeth lwyr dros ein polisi tramor ein hunain. Byddai ymadael â’r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn ein rhyddhau ar unwaith o ba bynnag ymwneud â pholisi tramor cyffredin yr UE gyda’r Uchel Gynrychiolydd a’r Gwasanaeth Gweithredu Allanol Ewropeaidd.
Rhaid inni beidio â chaniatáu i’n polisi tramor gael ei herwgipio gan wladwriaethau eraill. Yn benodol, rhaid inni osgoi unrhyw ymwneud pleidiol â’r Dwyrain Canol neu ecsbloetio gan weinyddiaeth yr Unol Daleithiau ar ein perthynas arbennig dybiedig â’r wlad honno. Nid ydym am i Brydain gyflawni rôl plismon y byd. Ni ddylid anfon ein milwyr i farw mewn rhyfeloedd tramor lle nad oes gennym unrhyw fuddiannau hanfodol yn y fantol.

Polisi Tramor ac Amddiffyn

Nid ydym yn ddifater ynghylch yr angen i gynnal heddwch byd-eang a byddem yn defnyddio ein safle parhaol ar Gyngor Diogelwch y Cenhedloedd Unedig i’r perwyl hwnnw, ond ni fyddem yn anfon ein milwyr i farw mewn gwrthdaro cenhedloedd eraill. Rhaid i’n polisi tramor gael ei bennu gan yr angen i amddiffyn ein pobl, ein tiriogaeth, a’n buddiannau hanfodol.

Nid oes gennym unrhyw elyniaeth tuag at unrhyw wladwriaeth na phobl, a byddem yn ymdrechu i gynnal perthynas heddychlon â phawb. Fodd bynnag, byddem yn amddiffyn ein hunain yn erbyn unrhyw ymosodwr gydag egni a phenderfyniad.

Ni ddylid deall bod ein gwrthwynebiad i anfon ein milwyr i farw mewn rhyfeloedd tramor yn golygu bod ein lefel bresennol o bersonél y lluoedd arfog yn rhy uchel. Rydym yn ymwybodol y gall bygythiadau gwirioneddol i’n pobl, ein tiriogaeth a’n buddiannau hanfodol ddigwydd ar unrhyw adeg heb i’r gwasanaethau diogelwch eu rhagweld. Rhaid inni gael y dynion yn barod i gwrdd ag unrhyw fygythiad i’n cenedl ar ennyd o rybudd.

Hyd yn oed mewn cyfnod o heddwch, gall milwyr gael eu defnyddio, ac maent yn cael eu defnyddio, i ddelio ag argyfyngau sifil, gan gynnwys anhrefn bwriadol. Bydd eu hangen hefyd i helpu i warchod ein ffiniau rhag mewnfudo torfol.

Rhaid i’n milwyr fod mewn cyflwr parhaol o barodrwydd ac wedi’u hamddiffyn gan offer amddiffyn bywyd o’r ansawdd uchaf.

Rhaid i Brydain beidio â bod yn fwy brwd ar ryfeloedd dibwrpas nac yn genedl o heddychwyr a dyhuddwyr. Dylem fwynhau heddwch fel etifeddiaeth o’r cryfder a’r penderfyniad i amddiffyn yr hyn sy’n eiddo i ni. Mae ein lluoedd wedi cael eu gwanhau weithiau gan doriadau amddiffyn annoeth, sydd wedi arwain at wariant diangen enfawr. Yr enghraifft orau o hyn yw tynnu HMS Endurance o batrolau o amgylch Ynysoedd y Falklands yn 1981. Roedd yr Ariannin yn gweld hyn fel gwahoddiad i oresgyn.

Rydym yn benderfynol bod yn rhaid i Brydain gadw ataliad niwclear annibynnol. Byddai rhyfel niwclear yn hunllef, ond y ffordd i’w atal yw i genhedloedd cyfrifol fel ein un ni gadw ein pŵer i wrthsefyll yn y pen draw.

Addysg

Rydym ni, yn unig ymhlith y Pleidiau, yn cydnabod bod gwahaniaethau a welwyd mewn gallu academaidd i’w priodoli i raddau helaethach i wahaniaethau mewn etifeddiaeth nag i wahaniaethau mewn magwraeth. Fodd bynnag, rydym yn gweld y rhain fel gwahaniaethau mewn math o allu yn gymaint â gwahaniaethau mewn lefel gallu. Mae’n bwysig, felly, bod y math o addysg a dderbynnir yn dibynnu ar alluoedd y plant dan sylw.

Yr ydym o blaid dethol, ond nid ydym yn ffafrio’r hen ddull o ddethol a oedd yn condemnio llawer o blant, yn aml yn annheg, i ffurf israddol ar addysg uwchradd. Roedd diffyg unffurfiaeth yn y dull dethol a hyd yn oed yng nghanrannau’r disgyblion a ganiateir i basio. Roedd pobl uwchradd fodern yn aml yn cael eu newynu gan adnoddau.

Dylem weld bod dethol yn y dyfodol ar sail rhaniadau fertigol rhwng mathau o allu yn hytrach na rhaniadau llorweddol rhwng lefelau gallu. Fodd bynnag, rhaid i bob dewis fod yn unffurf, yn hyblyg ac yn destun adolygiadau rheolaidd. Ni ddylid caniatáu i ysgolion (neu ffrydiau o fewn yr un ysgol) i’r rhai llai academaidd ddarparu addysg o ansawdd is. Rhaid i ysgolion ar gyfer pob disgybl dderbyn cyllid cyfatebol.

Rhaid i addysg gynradd sicrhau bod pob plentyn galluog, yn ddieithriad, yn llythrennog yn weithredol, yn rhifog ac yn gallu defnyddio technoleg gwybodaeth. Mae diagnosis cynnar o rwystrau i ddysgu yn hanfodol i ddarparu system addysgol deg.

Mae llawer o rinweddau eraill, ar wahân i allu academaidd, y mae angen eu cydnabod a’u meithrin mewn plant: ysbryd ymholi, gonestrwydd, dibynadwyedd, gallu chwaraeon a gwaith tîm. Mae’r rhinweddau hyn yr un mor bwysig.
Byddai addysg grefyddol mewn ysgolion gwladol cyffredin yn cael ei haddysgu o safbwynt Cristnogol anenwadol. Fodd bynnag, ni fyddai’n rhy ragnodol. Byddai rhieni yn parhau i fod â’r hawl i dynnu eu plant allan o ddosbarthiadau o’r fath.

Rhaid adfer disgyblaeth i’n hysgolion. Rhaid cael gwared ar y rhai nad yw eu hymddygiad aflonyddgar yn ymateb i bolisïau unioni’r ysgol a’u haddysgu mewn sefydliadau ar wahân.

Yn ein barn ni, mae addysg prifysgol wedi ehangu y tu hwnt i angen a thu hwnt i allu’r economi i amsugno graddedigion mewn swyddi sy’n gymesur â’u disgwyliadau, eu graddau a’u gwariant addysgol. Arweiniodd yr ehangu hwn yn ddiwrthdro at ddiwedd grantiau cynhaliaeth a chodi ffioedd dysgu ar fyfyrwyr. Canlyniad hyn oll yw bod bron pob un o’r graddedigion, ac eithrio’r rhai o deuluoedd cyfoethog iawn, yn gadael y brifysgol gyda dyledion enfawr. At hynny, yn aml mae’n rhaid iddynt dderbyn swyddi a fyddai wedi bod ar gael iddynt fel rhai sy’n gadael yr ysgol. Dylem esbonio i’r rhai sy’n dymuno ymuno â’r proffesiynau, gan gynnwys y gyfraith a chyfrifeg, fod llwybrau amgen heb fod angen mynd i’r brifysgol.

Credwn y dylai’r rhai sydd â’r deallusrwydd gorau, y mae cydwybodolrwydd ac angen am eu maes astudio yn cyd-fynd â’u deallusrwydd, allu ennill yr hawl i gael eu ffioedd dysgu i gael eu talu a hyd yn oed i dderbyn grant cynhaliaeth.

Mae angen i’r Deyrnas Unedig gael manteision chwyldro diwydiannol newydd. Byddai hyn yn gofyn am system addysg sy’n gwthio addysg mewn gwyddoniaeth a thechnoleg i flaen ei blaenoriaethau.

Polisi Economaidd

Rydym yn credu mewn menter breifat, ond nid ydym yn cefnogi’r farn na ddylai fod unrhyw reoleiddio economaidd gan y wladwriaeth. Byddem yn dilyn polisi Cenedlaetholdeb Economaidd. Yn benodol, nid ydym yn credu mewn masnach ryngwladol anghyfyngedig pan fydd yn amlwg wedi dinistrio llawer o’n diwydiant gweithgynhyrchu. Byddem yn ceisio ailadeiladu ein diwydiant gweithgynhyrchu gyda chymorth y wladwriaeth os oes angen. Globaleiddio – gall symudiad rhydd nwyddau, gwasanaethau a hyd yn oed pobl ledled y byd gael un canlyniad yn unig: sef y bydd pob lefel cyflog ledled y byd yn fras i’r un lefel.

Rhaid i bolisi macro-economaidd fod yn seiliedig ar yr egwyddor bod yn rhaid i’r hyn sy’n ffisegol bosibl fod yn bosibl yn ariannol; fel arall, mae rhywbeth o’i le ar y system ariannol. Mae hyn yn golygu os oes gweithwyr di-waith ac anghenion anfoddhaol y gallent eu cyflawni, rhaid i’r system ariannol hwyluso’r broses o fodloni’r anghenion hynny.

Mae’r system ariannol bresennol yn un lle mae llawer o’r cyflenwad arian yn cael ei greu gan fanciau preifat ar sail angen y banciau i wneud elw yn hytrach nag anghenion yr economi. Rhaid i swm a ffurf yr arian sydd mewn cylchrediad fod o dan reolaeth Banc Lloegr, a rhaid iddo fod yn annibynnol ar lywodraeth y dydd.

Mae’r ffyrdd y mae llywodraethau o wahanol argyhoeddiadau gwleidyddol yn ceisio lleihau diweithdra ac adfer gweithgaredd busnes yn niferus ac amrywiol. Mae dulliau Keynesaidd a Friedman yn ddiffygiol. Mae arnom angen system sy’n achosi i weithgarwch ddychwelyd yn gyflym heb achosi chwyddiant trwy gynnydd mewn galw yn y gwaddod. Mae angen inni gynhyrchu atchwyddiant heb chwyddiant.

Strwythur Busnes

Rydym yn ffafrio menter breifat ar gyfer y rhan fwyaf o feysydd yr economi. Fodd bynnag, credwn y dylai monopolïau naturiol megis y system bost ac, yn y pen draw, y rheilffyrdd fod yn eiddo cyhoeddus ar ffurf corfforaethau cyhoeddus.
Credwn y dylid ymestyn menter breifat i gynifer o bobl â phosibl drwy annog hunangyflogaeth, busnesau bach a chanolig, cynlluniau perchnogaeth cyfranddaliadau gweithwyr, megis y rhai a ddarperir gan Marks & Spencer, a phartneriaeth gweithwyr llawn, megis y cynllun John. Partneriaeth Lewis / Waitrose.
Nid ydym yn cymeradwyo’r broses Globaleiddio nac ideoleg wleidyddol ac economaidd Globaleiddio, sy’n hyrwyddo’r broses. Fodd bynnag, mae cwmnïau byd-eang ac amlwladol yn ffaith yn y byd modern. Oni bai am weithfeydd Honda a Nissan yn y DU, byddai gennym ddiwydiant gweithgynhyrchu ceir wedi’i ddisbyddu’n fawr.

Os yw cwmnïau byd-eang neu amlwladol yn dymuno gwerthu eu cynnyrch ym Mhrydain, y dybiaeth yw y dylent weithgynhyrchu eu nwyddau ym Mhrydain, gan gyflogi pobol o Brydain.

Byddem yn adolygu arferion fel prisiau trosglwyddo yn ofalus, lle mae corfforaethau byd-eang yn ceisio trosglwyddo eu helw dramor er mwyn osgoi talu trethi i’r Trysorlys.
Yn y tymor hwy, wrth gwrs, dylem hoffi ailsefydlu diwydiant gweithgynhyrchu Prydain, sy’n eiddo i gwmnïau Prydeinig. Credwn y dylai cyfleustodau Prydeinig gael eu rheoli gan gwmnïau Prydeinig.

Lles Cymdeithasol a Thai

Pan fydd swyddi addas ar gael, rhaid disgwyl i hawlwyr chwilio amdanynt. Ni all y wladwriaeth na’r hawlwyr fod yn hunanfodlon ynghylch problem y di-waith hirdymor. Fodd bynnag, nid oes unrhyw ddiben i swyddogion y wladwriaeth aflonyddu ar hawlwyr i wneud cais am swyddi nad ydynt yn bodoli. Mae gan y wladwriaeth ddyletswydd i sicrhau bod gwaith yn cael ei ddarparu i ddiwallu anghenion gwirioneddol, fel nad oes unrhyw ddi-waith hirdymor.

Mae’r angen canfyddedig presennol i adeiladu mwy a mwy o dai ar safleoedd tir glas gwerthfawr yn cael ei ysgogi gan fewnfudo di-ben-draw ar raddfa fawr. Pe baem yn atal mewnfudo a rhoi’r broses yn ôl, byddai’r argyfwng tai yn diflannu.

Yn y cyfamser, mae’n rhaid i bobl â gwreiddiau lleol dderbyn ffafriaeth statudol dros newydd-ddyfodiaid.

Iechyd

Rydym wedi ymrwymo’n llwyr i’r Gwasanaeth Iechyd Gwladol. Fodd bynnag, rydym yn pryderu bod y Gwasanaeth Iechyd Gwladol wedi dod yn rhyngwladol o ran ei ddarparwyr gwasanaeth ac o ran cleifion.

Mae ymarferwyr meddygol a nyrsys yn aml yn cael eu hysbeilio o wledydd y Trydydd Byd na allant fforddio eu hyfforddi. Mae’n gwbl anfoesol i’r byd datblygedig recriwtio staff gofal iechyd o wledydd tlawd pan fo angen y gweithwyr hynny i ofalu am eu cydwladwyr gartref.

Mae angen i ni helpu gwledydd tlawd i hyfforddi eu disgleiriaf a’u gorau i ddod yn ymarferwyr meddygol a nyrsys, gyda phecynnau dysgu o bell yn cael eu rheoli gan wirfoddolwyr – yn enwedig gan y rhai sydd â chysylltiadau â’r gwledydd dan sylw. Byddai buddiolwyr y cymorth hwn yn rhwym yn gytundebol i neilltuo eu gyrfaoedd i ofalu am eu pobl eu hunain.

Mae gan Brydain bobl dalentog a chydwybodol o fewn ein poblogaethau ein hunain y gellir yn hawdd eu haddysgu a’u hyfforddi i ddarparu’r ystod lawn o wasanaethau meddygol. Mae’r GMC wedi datgelu bod meddygon a hyfforddwyd dramor yn anghymesur o debygol o gael eu dileu o’r gofrestr neu eu hatal am gamymddwyn neu anghymhwysedd.

Sefydlwyd y Gwasanaeth Iechyd Gwladol ar y dybiaeth y byddai’n darparu gofal i bobl Prydain ac nid pobl y byd i gyd. Ni ddylid caniatáu i dwristiaid iechyd ddefnyddio gwasanaethau’r GIG.

Mae costau gweinyddol y gwasanaeth iechyd yn anghymesur o uchel. Rhaid symud cyllid tuag at y rhai sy’n darparu gwasanaethau iechyd yn uniongyrchol i’r claf.

Amaethyddiaeth

Mae amaethyddiaeth a chadw stoc yn ffurfio sector o’r economi na ellir, yn fwy na dim arall, ei adael i fympwyon y farchnad rydd. Mae ymyrraeth y llywodraeth yn hanfodol. Mae goroesiad ein sector amaethyddol yn bwysicach nag unrhyw sector arall.

Yn gyntaf, efallai y bydd ein union oroesiad yn dibynnu, mewn argyfyngau, ar ein gallu i fwydo ein hunain. Yn ail, pe bai unrhyw dir amaethyddol pellach yn cael ei golli oherwydd trefoli, dylem fod yn ffarwelio â Phrydain wledig.

Rhaid cefnogi’r sector oherwydd bod amodau’r farchnad yn dra gwahanol. Mae’r galw yn anelastig o ran pris, ac mae cyflenwad hefyd yn anelastig yn y tymor byr oherwydd ei fod yn dibynnu ar rymoedd y tu allan i reolaeth y cynhyrchydd. Rhaid peidio â gadael prisiau i rymoedd y farchnad.

Byddai’n well gennym daliadau diffyg sy’n cadw prisiau’n isel yn hytrach na system ymyrraeth yr UE, sy’n gwthio prisiau i fyny.
Yr Amgylchedd

Estynnwn ein consyrn dros bobl frodorol Prydain i les amgylchedd ein mamwlad genedlaethol, Ynysoedd Prydain. Ystyriwn mai’r prif fygythiad i’n hamgylchedd yw’r gorlenwi gormodol a chynyddol ar ein hynysoedd.

Nid yn unig y mae ein mamwlad yn llawn. Mae’n byrstio ar y gwythiennau. Mae Cymru a Lloegr yn arbennig, lle mae’r mwyafrif llethol o’n pobl yn byw, wedi dod yn un o’r ardaloedd mwyaf poblog o’i maint yn y byd, yn llawer mwy gorlawn na’n prif gymdogion Ewropeaidd. Yr achos o hynny yw Mewnfudo.
Mae’r rhan fwyaf o’r cynnydd digynsail o 3.7 miliwn ym mhoblogaeth Cymru a Lloegr yn y deng mlynedd hyd at Gyfrifiad 2011 diwethaf wedi’i gyfaddef yn swyddogol i fod o ganlyniad i fewnfudo parhaus. Mae’r gweddill oherwydd cyfraddau genedigaethau uwch ymhlith grwpiau ethnig o darddiad Mewnfudwyr ôl-1948.
Yn ein barn ni, mae gorlenwi yn achosi bron yr holl broblemau eraill sy’n effeithio ar ein hamgylchedd. Blerdwf trefol, y pwysau di-ildio i adeiladu mwy fyth o dai ar yr hyn sydd ar ôl o’n cefn gwlad i gartrefu mwy fyth o bobl, ac i ddefnyddio dulliau ffermio dwysach i geisio eu bwydo. Mae’r dulliau ffermio dwys hyn yn cael eu cydnabod fel y prif fygythiad i’n bywyd gwyllt brodorol, yn enwedig adar gwyllt. Mae gorlenwi hefyd yn rhoi straen ar ein system drafnidiaeth, gan arwain at draffyrdd a threnau cymudo llawn dop.

Yn waeth yn y tymor hir, mae’r ffaith bod ein hynysoedd bellach â llawer mwy o bobl wedi’u tagu arnynt nag y gallant eu cynnal neu eu bwydo’n gynaliadwy yn golygu ein bod yn fwyfwy peryglus dibynnol ar we fwyfwy cymhleth a mwy bregus o fasnach fyd-eang am fwyd, tanwydd. , ynni a deunyddiau crai hanfodol.

Byddem, felly, yn gwarchod amgylchedd Ynysoedd Prydain ac ansawdd bywyd pobl Prydain trwy atal pob Mewnfudo pellach yn gyfan gwbl. Mae ein hynysoedd yn llawn ac ni allant gymryd mwy o bobl i ymgartrefu arnynt. Byddem ymhellach, fel y nodwyd eisoes, yn annog cymunedau Mewnfudwyr i ddychwelyd i’w gwledydd gwreiddiol.

O ystyried bod y gyfradd genedigaethau ymhlith poblogaeth frodorol Prydain wedi disgyn yn sylweddol is na’r lefelau amnewid pe bai ein pobl yn byw yn ein tir yn unig, byddai poblogaeth ein hynysoedd yn sefydlogi ar lefel amgylcheddol gynaliadwy, gan roi ansawdd bywyd llawer gwell i bawb. . Dyna yw ein nod.

Diwylliant

Rydym yn haeru nad yw anheddiad ein gwlad gan niferoedd mawr o dramorwyr o bob rhan o’r byd yn cyfoethogi ein diwylliant nac yn hyrwyddo amlddiwylliannedd ac amrywiaeth. I’r gwrthwyneb, credwn mai effaith mudo torfol yma ac o gwmpas y byd yw tlodi diwylliant pawb, gan ddinistrio amrywiaeth a’i ddisodli gan ungnwd pop byd-eang wedi’i fasnacheiddio, homogeneiddio ac enwadur lleiaf cyffredin ar draws y blaned gyfan nad yw o fudd i unrhyw un. un heblaw am y corfforaethau rhyngwladol anferth y mae eu marchnata byd-eang yn gwneud hyn yn haws.
Mewn cyferbyniad, fel Cenedlaetholwyr, rydym yn cefnogi amrywiaeth go iawn. Rydyn ni eisiau byd amlddiwylliannol cynaliadwy o genhedloedd amrywiol yn hytrach na dinistrio pob diwylliant – a’r ethnigrwydd amrywiol a’i creodd yn unigryw – ym mhobman yn enw ungnwd pop byd-eang a yrrir gan y Busnes Mawr.
Byddem, felly, yn cynnal ac yn cyfoethogi ein cenedl, gyda’i hunaniaethau ethnoddiwylliannol hynafol, Sgoteg, Wlster, Cymraeg, Cernyweg, Manaweg ac yn olaf ond nid lleiaf, Saesneg, ein diwylliannau gwerin traddodiadol a’n treftadaeth gerddorol, a’r ieithoedd sy’n sail iddynt, fel man poeth o amrywiaeth ddiwylliannol gyfoethog, gynhenid.
Byddem yn annog pobloedd a chenhedloedd eraill ledled y byd i wneud yr un peth. Felly, ni fydd y byd yn colli diwylliant pawb mewn llanast torfol homogenaidd; yn lle hynny, bydd yn dathlu ac yn cadw amrywiaeth ddiwylliannol gyfoethog, treftadaeth ac ethnigrwydd y byd.

Ar lefel fyd-eang, ac yn y tymor hir, ni Cenedlaetholwyr yw’r unig wir gyfeillion i amlddiwylliannedd ac amrywiaeth, y byddai’r rhai sy’n parotio’r ymadroddion Cywir Gwleidyddol hynny, mewn gwirionedd, yn eu dinistrio i bawb ym mhobman.

Dilynwch ni a rhannwch ein cynnwys ar y llwyfannau cyfryngau cymdeithasol hyn gan ddefnyddio’r dolenni isod:

X (Twitter gynt): @BritishDems
Youtube: @BritishDemocrats
Facebook: @BritishDems
Telegram: @British_Democrats

Democratiaid Prydeinig: YMUNWCH
Y Blaid Hunaniaeth Brydeinig